Thompson v. Esham et al
| Gerald Thompson |
| Lt. Esham, Hart, Sears, Hutchinson, Butterbaugh, Sgt. McCrosky, Lewis, Layne, Rogers and Henson |
| 1:2015cv00553 |
| August 24, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Cincinnati Office |
| SCIOTO |
| Michael R. Barrett |
| Stephanie K. Bowman |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Defendant |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
93
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 92 Report and Recommendation; Plaintiff/Appellant is assessed the appellate filing fee and is given 30 days within which to pay it. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 12/14/18. (ba)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
85
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation re 82 Report and Recommendation denying 18 Motion for Leave to Amend. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 3/28/18. (ba)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
80
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation re 78 Report and Recommendation granting 71 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 2/5/18. (ba)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
78
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 71 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. IT IS RECOMMENDED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 71 be GRANTED and that all claims against Defendants Eshem, Rogers, Hart, Cool and Davis be DISMI SSED with prejudice. Objections to R&R due by 1/26/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 1/12/2018. (km)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
23
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation re 7 Report and Recommendation; Plaintiff's claims against Defendant McCrosky and Defendants Sears, Hutchinson, Henson, Lewis, Layne and Butterbaugh are dismissed for failing to state a claim. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 2/22/16. (ba)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
13
ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 11/19/15. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT: Plaintiff's 10 Amended Complaint submitted as an addition to the original complaint be DISMISSED for failure to state a cl aim upon which relief may be granted, except that plaintiff is allowed to proceed on the following new claims: (1) claim against defendantsEsham and Rogers based on their alleged use of excessive force in an incident that occurred on June 11, 2015 a t SOCF; (2) claim against two John Doe defendants based on their participation in the incident involving the alleged use of excessive force that occurred on January 25, 2015 at SOCF; and (3) claims against defendants Duke Cool and Cynthia Davis for f ailing to protect him from known risks to this safety. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b).IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiffs 10 motion to file an amended complaint is GRANTED. 2. The 7 Order and Report and Recommendation issued October 2, 2015 addressing plaintiffs original complaint remains in effect, except that the recommendation in that Rogers be dismissed as a defendant in this action is VACATED. 3. To the extent that plaintiff has submitted completed summons and Uni ted States Marshal forms for the defendants named in the original and amended complaints, the United States Marshal shall serve a copy of the original 6 COMPLAINT, 10 Amended Complaint, summons, the 5 ORDER GRANTING PRISONER IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS, the 7 ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, and this Order and Report and Recommendation upon the following defendants who remain in the case, as directed by plaintiff: Lt. Esham, Nurse Hart, Lt. Rogers, Duke Cool, and Cynthia Davis. All co sts of service shall be advanced by the United States. To the extent that plaintiff has not submitted summons and United States Marshal forms for any of the above listed defendants who remain in this action, plaintiff is ORDERED to submit completed s ummons and United States Marshal forms for those defendants within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send summons and United States Marshal forms to plaintiff for this purpose. In addition, before service may be issued upon the John Doe defendants who remain in this action, plaintiff must file a motion to issue service setting forth the identity of those defendants. Plaintiff must also provide updated United States Marshal and summons forms for servi ce on each John Doe defendant once he has discovered his or her identity. Plaintiff is therefore ORDERED to file a motion to issue service, including updated United States Marshal and summons forms, if and when plaintiff discovers the identity of the John Doe defendants through discovery. Plaintiff is advised that no service will be issued on the John Doe defendants unless plaintiff complies with this Order. (Objections to R&R due by 12/7/2015). (eh)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Ohio Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
